@99occupyBoycott For Owning Equally #Boycott4OwningEq: Starting in boycotting groups to become co-owners. The customers (being the 99%), can become co-owners in media and market networks being the medium between the producers owners (1%) and their customers (99%)!

No Weapon Industry Profit!Make Peace by signing this petition: "I think it is ok to support those who would not pay tax as long as their government would not fully (100%) tax all weapon production profit or eliminate any such profit."

Developing the platform: For agpl developers on github developing the comcom-platforms, starting in Uid - an Identification device for democratic applications providing a unique identification per each user/owner.

Organization's RegisteringFrom here we create the market for comcomized units. We begin here in estimating this market, by asking for the contact of each organization, the number of its peers and its value. This page is designed mainly for organizers.

GovComComGovComCom - Make the bailouts or privatizations working for the people! The ordinary people can takeover central banks and banks and start demand before any privatization or nationalisation to first have the list of the ordinary people, which are claimed by the government to be benefited form such act , and then to demand that those ordinary people would become equal shareholders in the institutes planned to be bailed or sold out!

peers' homesArtist activist or student using editing and 24/7 steaming/transmitting room and bringing their young spirit in an authentic trend to a developing area. Authentic why? Just because they are all groups of peer owners!

Customers' Equal OwnershipAs any effective group of customers must be diverse and big, it cannot fit to the structure of cooperative, since cooperative is only suitable to small and homogenic groups, as the power of minorities or individuals in cooperative, is inversely proportional to its size and as its homogeneity is inversely proportional to the benefit of its members also to exit it.
» Terms & Reasons1) Tradability, 2) The d,3) Peers' autonomy, 4) Coherent Layering, 5) Flexibility of the d and 6) Recursive nature of the contract. AS d * i = c * n , where d (as in Decentralization ) is the ratio of the portion held by all the peer owners, i is the number of Issues shares, c is the Count of all peer owners and n is the number of shares per each peer owner.
»» e.g. for Contract
»» Learn/TeachWorkshops/Assemblies/Interviewes: We spread comcomism on the ground and online and in parallel
» Mailing lists
»» Contact/Chat/Twitt
»» Neighborhoods of The People
»»» TakeShare ItThe people's humane and effective media - the media of the people by the people and for the people. Clone your "buildup" site to create or join your networks, contents and events » Page categories . The people's humane and effective media - the media of the people by the people and for the people. What it is about? Spreading anyone's events in info points from one calendar connecting small communities maintaining the points. What it's for? Practicing The Freedom Of Assemblies around the info points publishing the events of/by anyone. How? As the events are flushed from one calendar, the calendar is moderated by the ("talking") communities maintaining the info points, where the calendar with its history is able to be cloned for further forking and where specific common pages are able to be included.

this is for the user adding content and activity to this site. please ask for and let other now what you would like to have here and if you have any question about how to edit your page etc, please let us help you, thanks.

I come to know about your site from my friend and when i came here i come to know that a lot of information waiting for me…..
curt
Nike Air Royal Mid VT on www. nicetick.com/nike-air-royal-mid-vt-blue-molded-leather-club-purple.html

Who are obama's brother/sisters over which he is the kipper,? The bankers? Well if they are such wizard who could make 12 times more for each dollar, why shouldn't they be GovComComized now?
please let obama know about comcom!
It seems that he is now surrounded by such officers who call transparency the act of telling you what they want to tell or sell but without the act of letting you know by letting you ask your questions.
see more here: http://iswith.wikidot.com/govcomcom

Well - for answering this question, I have to give you a little backround regarding the structure of the german language. There exist three different articles, one for each male, female and neutral, in both cases, determined as well as undetermined ('the' and 'a'). That is how each mentioning of a person is identified as either male or female. This distinction is continued throughout all the grammar, for pronouns, adjectives etc.

In addition, the female form of any specification of a person (such as e.g. shareholder) is expressed by the suffix 'in', so that a female shareholder would be a shareholderin, which for plural then reaches the form of shareholderinnen.

Now the solutions in use keep grammatical correctness and usually function by ecplicit mentioning of both, the male and the female form, applied in one of several ways, such as e.g.: "shareholder and shareholderin" or "shareholder/in" or "shareholderIn" etc. Of course then, according to the grammar, this duplification has to be continued throughout all the sentence.

The solution, which the translator applied, acts differently. Intentionally it breaks the rules of grammar insofar, that consequently it uses the (male) basic form of the specification (e.g. shareholder), but combined with consequently using the female article and the grammatical female form of the sentence. That is, we talk about a she and her shares, but we do that using the usual and common and simple (and male) form of the person's specification (shareholder).

The advantage is to avoid mutations, such as e.g. Each(m/f) shareholder/in holds his/her shares until his/her membership extends and he/she decides to become a(m/f) member/in., where the concentration is constantly trapped in the slashes. Also, but this is my very subjective feeling, the suffix in always lets me feel like some kind of handicapped person, i am not only an electrician, i am an insisted electricianin, i must get this tail to anything, just to exist. So I found, that happily I can be called an electrician, as long as I am referred to as a she - which is exactly, what I am doing in my way of translation.

The slight irritation, I feel, can be easily overcome, where soon you get used to this form. And how do you (german speaker) feel it?

as those of you, who know german, french, italian, espanol, hebrew, arabic etc etc etc may be aware to, the usual form to express, that male and female persons are talked about, is to just use the male form. I don't like it. Me, as a german speaker, am constantly trying to be creative in always new approaches regarding that effect. It is always a 'dance on the wire' between the readability and the flow of the writing at one hand, and the -in my opinion- necessary explicit mentioning of females in some way at the other hand.

In german, there are some -more or less sophisticate- approaches in use by people trying to be pc, but all of which seem in one or the other way poor, miserable, stiff and/or not fun.

Others claim, well, of course we mean also females, what is the fuss about…

Sure. Just, if you are (incidently) a male person, and you symphatize with this claim, just for fun try a little exercise: Replace the male form with the female form in any arbitrary text, read it, and find out if 'of course' you feel meant, too. I am curious about the result, you're welcome to share it at this place…

And you are welcome to share your opinion as well as any other thoughts, ideas, suggestions, critics etc about the subject, considering the german or any other concerned language (english doesn't seem to be so much affected, is that right?)

Looking forward to your feedback and to a developing discussion, which, in the best case, hopefully may even lead to a better solution…

e.g. why shareholder can not be both Common shareholder and Private shareholder (Point 3), why d must be static (Point 2)?

Because these 6 points are for achieving an outstanding standard by which full transparency can be easily get by knowing the d alone, hence the distinction between the 2 portion must be fully clear. This standard must be simple (one factor - the d), if the purpose is decentralization of the market, which is the case for the concept of the ComCom.

When constantly dedicating (1/d-d)*v of all common shareholders
to be held by another common company of which d=1,
for baying private shares at their minimal price reflected from said v,
then the common shareholders can protect the value of v, when baying them by the latter company at the minimal price, if it is to be agreed between the shareholder.

<\ ok so let's say Alice is a client and Bob is a shareholder
what happens?
/> ok, but not, lets say Alice is private shareholder and Bob is client being common shareholder
<\ ok
/> you need to define what kind of shareholder, more then if the one is client or shareholder
<\ so Bob pays 10 once plus 24 per month?
/> y
so, we need also to define d, lets say d=0.8, that is to say from the total and divednt
bob with the other such common would get only 80%
and Alice with other such private would get 20%
now we can calculate the "membership"
lets say each such as bob pay 24 in cycle
<\ ok
/> also lets say that we have 100 common
and that the company pay for salary etc some expenses , lets say 1000.
<\ ok
/> so we have from membership 2400, minus 1000, left over 1400 to share in dividend, if we do not want to invest that for the future

<\ who's doing the work?
/> those who get payed and/or the members, as in the web 2.0 strategies
<\ ok let's get the whole picture
let's say we make databases for companies
/> ok
<\ we have 100 coders
we have 1000 customers
/> ok
you can do it in 2 ways:
the question is who are we, are we private shareholders? and do we need such, for investment
<\ ok start over
/> so lets say we need some investment we would put d=0.8, for real investor to be private shareholders, and we the coders would be 100 common share holders, we would pay our holding by coding
<\ let's say we make a web browser with smellovision
/> what is smellovision?
<\ you can smell people over the internet
joke
/> fine
so lets define numbers here
say we want 1m investment, we are 100 coder having already the concept
we expect market of ?
… ok lets say market of 100m
so
the privet investors would get , from the market of 100m only 20m whereas each of the common share holder would get 800,000
but that is if we did not expanses,
<\ ok
now
/> now let say the market was here defined per year
<\ what happens with the 10 and 24?
if I don't code I pay 24 a month
but if I code I don't pay anything?
/> moment,
it, how to use the d or the distinction can be played in different ways
in the 1st e.g. we talked about some thing like web 2.0 thing and in the 2nd about hard core developers
you can play it more wide if you would allow 3rd party services as part of the structure
<\ but where is the 10 and the 24?
/> in the 2nd e.g. the 10 is the activity of the common shareholder being the coders, and the 24 is payed by the companies to which we sell the smelling machine
<\ ok so if I code I don't pay and if I don't code I pay?
If I'm the common shareholder?
/> that is in the 2nd, the client is fully distinguished from the company whereas in 1st the client is part of building the company
if the company get income from non common share holder, the company is free from them, those are the clients of the smelling machine
<\ Ok example:
100 people have shares, 50 code, 50 pay 10
/> define common and privet please
also the d
<\ all are common
and .8
how does the share price go up or down?
/> yes it can be, but i do not know if this what you mean
it means that those who pay 10 and those who code are EQUAL
<\ ok
fair enough
/> now it may hold with the payment of membership
<\ membership = cost of service?
/> but if that is so, why not having the coder in the private
membership cost = cost of service+ benfite
<\ benefits?
like
what?
I think I get it
/> of the shareholders , like dividend and holding Intellectual Properties
<\ ok
/> 8-|:P:D

<\ Alice is 100 coders, Bob is 10m buyers, Charlie is 1m investor
/> so
<\ something is odd about it
/> 1st question do we want the buyers to be common shareholders
ok look
<\ let's start with no
buyer is just customer
make it simple then more complex
/> so this is easy have the investor in private and the coder in common, and you are done
<\ how much code = 1 share?
Alice is common and Charlie is private
<\ right
1000 lines of code, 2 months of code?
20 hours per month of maintenance of code?
/> so 0.008 get each coder and0.2 get Charlie
<\ if coder stops coding?
/> from the income, which did not say, did we define the income?
he get!!!
this is so much important in relation to open source
<\ I know
but it has to be reasonable or no one invest as private
/> he gets, he might get less, because other coder gut in where he gut out of coding, but not from common shareholding, that is to say we would have more common share holders
<\ How about this:
/> it is so reasonable, since no gut my invention, because i am not going to code all my life
?
<\ I have an idea
if coder stops coding, he becomes private shareholder
from his coding but no longer has control of code
or something
/> let me say this:
1. no one can be both common and private shareholder
<\ right has to exchange
/> 2. the values might feet to what you suggest but not always
<\ charter of company would state that
there is a way to do this very simple
/> can exchange but not be both, btw you can have common company in one portion and be persnal privte shareholder in the other
so no problem, it depended on the value
it might hold, but the problem is of being scalable
e.g. we begin in d=0.8 and 1M private and 100 coders
being common
now the company gut huge
its total is 1b
no , sorry YOU ARE RIGHT
it holds
because the common would be exchanging for the right proportion
but
<\ someone who pays 10 gets 800,000, someone who pays 1million gets 200,000 something wrong there
/> to summarize, such regulation, we need to granty that the private holder would agree because that one going to loose
it not hold, sorry again
<\ there is a way to do this but it's going to have to be carefully done
/> because the common would evacuate place for other common , but the private would not agree to pay it
<\ ok let's try a different way:
/> look take yourself in the private
as private you are going to pay from your share for nothing to the common one
this cause fraction!!!
<\ yup
after 6 years investor makes profit 200,000 while coder buys a hotel
/> just to add for this case, all the common would benfite from that exachnge
>?<hotel<?!>
<\ small hotel
/> no problem , go on
<\ ok
here's the way to do:
the code is made of modules
/> y?
<\ so we can know the value of the code
/> …
<\ so we know how to exchange
/> but why should we!?
<\ never mind my mistake
/> we could add new common constatly, if the value of the code is such which would alow to build on it
then we say we have 100 coder to BEGIN with , the would make such amount of code, which genrate income
that income sould continue ONLY if more coder would com in
so the income would increse , it would be added
<\ ok
/> now to this flow we add more doprs, more coders
<\ how about this: no common or private
/> more income distinuted between more coders
all are common
<\ code = .8 and money = .2
make it simple that way
or better
/> code is common money is private, but what is the moeny income or out come?
<\ investor gets 20million coder get 800,000
/> so that is what we talked before?
<\ only coder is common there is no money common
because 800,000/10 = 80,000x profit, 20m/1m = 20x profit
investor makes more but spends less
er but common spends less
/> i did not gut the different, please try to use the (my) definition we already established

Hi, only this page shows its comments but this page as any other page has its thread in the forum of this site and have its bottom, see the discuss(number of comments) and click it for to go to the thread for to find the relevant page see this

Any page you can also rate and in any case: Let the others learn and earn from your learning, please watch the threads ask, replay, post etc.

You can also create pages in this site and after contacting they might be included in this font page.

All about ComCom and/or about how to realize it (how to ComCom it)
is in our need, we must let it out!

ComCom - Common Company and Common Companies

Introduction to Common Companies - the ComCom

Common companies (ComCom) are useful tool for building communities like of artists, developers and/or researchers (power producers) in form of commercial companies. Such companies Fit to close AND open source, including Web2.0, strategies and epically the social-networking ones. In short: ComCom make your knowledge profitable (for you) while being shareable (with the others) in your commercial form at the commercial world.

As commercial companies the ownership over each ComCom is divided into 2 bound portions, of which one is the Private acting as in any other company and the other is the Common equally shared between all its (Common) shareholders, each of which is either a person or a ComCom.

Generally speaking: The Common portion of ComCom is intended for who otherwise would be excluded form the ownership over the company but would still share some common interest/attributes in/with the company, where such interest/attributes support the growth of the company and such new type of owners in relation to the company may be its clients and/or contributors cooperating with it (such as power producers).

In nutshelll: ComCom, respectively in their both portions, integrate both type of motivations:

the socialistic being of the common, as it is driven from unity and held by the common shareholders and

the capitalistic being of the discrimination, as it is driven form individuality and held by the private shareholders .

The business of IsWith LTD is made also as a showcase for making your ComCom, it is based on 3 services for its clients being also its shareholders, where the services are

changing licensing of its works from non-commercial to commercial one but with attribution to here,

ComCom - 7 Short Descriptions (node/38),

Here you can learn what is a common company (ComCom) and how it helps you to earn from contributing your licensed content regardless of any ads, become a member in this networking and/or a shareholder of the provider providing this networking and as such also become its client able to sell products in the networking:

Common Companies are commercial ones distinguished by having one simple rule accepted by all the shareholders of such company. This rule defines a portion of the company to be shared (dynamically and) equally between all the shareholders owning (equal) part in that portion, hence those shareholders are the Common shareholders of the company versus its Private shareholders only owning any part of the other portion of the company, where the proportion of the common portion out of all such company is unchangeable and defines the decentralization factor of the company (aka its d going from 0 to 1).

A short example for the benefit: Have 2 stores; the A and the B. One is in front the other and both sell the same in the same price, but store A, unlike store B, lets its clients be also its common shareholders. So for once payment for the shares, each client of A (by becoming also its common shareholder) get also a hold (result in profit and power of decision) in store A and for that the client might bring the others to A and be more loyal to A (and still the schema of A is NOT of pyramid, since all the common shareholders have equal number of shares all the time). In this way A would get also extra investment. The question then is where from would like to buy, A or B?

Common and individual Dependencies: Common companies in the level of their owners are useful in integrating Common Dependencies with the individual ones.

Common Dependencies are such in which dependency of/in one can NOT benefit from the failure of the other,

whereas the individual Dependencies are such in which dependency of/in one can benefit (by better positioning the one) due the failure of the other.

Common Dependencies are desirable at least in resolving the man cause climate changes and can be found in marriage when sharing bank accounts, in democratic schema, in communities, in networking and/or in being fans of, whereas the individual Dependencies are found in any individual assigning of ownership and/or position and can be found in competition useful in systems depended on making themselves distinguished over other such systems.

A short example for functional formation: Common companies in their formations can take advantage of their natural integration of Common Dependencies with the individual ones, here is an e.g.: some developers (comparable to core developers with their project manger in an open source development) form the ComCom A in which they are a private shareholder inviting other developers as common shareholders in A, where A is a private shareholder in B of which common shareholders are also testers of the products of A and where the B is a private shareholders in C, of which common shareholders are clients of C and users-buyers of the product of A. This is only 3 level structure of formation of common companies, which could be deeper and wider with combining also specific services and integration of products.

Mapping the distribution of powers: The real producers of the power of/upon the people (i.e. those who make any significant advantage), are the artists, developers and/or researchers, but the power owners (i.e. shareholders) and power holders (i.e. CEO under the shareholders) control for to have their own benefit-from, and/or their own production-process-until, realizing any products/services to deliver out of the power producers.

With common companies you can use your own talent as a power producer by being one of such (Common or Private) owners for making your difference together with making your profit. Such companies can also regulate who may be their desired clients being also their (Common) shareholders, hence the structure of such companies is a perfect match for the web2.0 environment, even to the extent of cutting the investors situated between the work and its use/users.

Why and how decentralization now:

The problem to solve: We live in an era of both extremes, namely; privatization (resulted in reduction of the power of all states and political powers with increase of corruption caused by "big players") AND centralization (resulted in fewer possessing the most of the currently proven to be unbalanced global market), what could we do about it and how could we even earn from such doing?

Is it a problem, why is it a problem, or why is it my problem? What we now face (unbalanced and centralized globalization) was predictable to be so and not only because its unmoral appearance but mainly because being inefficient and heading toward its own collapsing, since any centralized system (such as the one below each CEO or the one belonging to the fewer possessing the most of the market), must, for not to fail, be limited to its well defined tasks and timeframe/timelines and that is just because of its own handling of its focus, hence centralization can never be successful (even with having the strongest force) while being permanent and global (with no task and timeframe specification) and decentralization can never only be an utopia (in fact in the nature and naturally decentralization is the default). In other words, you can never earn for long period of time only by well positioning yourself in one system being centralized merely, see here why.

Conclusion: In relation to the same product, letting the power producers also be the power owners, when facing the current (unbalanced and centralized) globalization, resolves the problem of increasing economic centralization! The concept of Common Companies is designed for achieving precisely such resolving, so now we, the power producers, must by ourselves, and can for making our own profit, resolve that problem and then when already crystallized invite also external investors. You can see here if the approach of opening the knowledge merely decentralize the profit including that of the producers.

ComCom - How it goes for me being a power producer (node/12)

When you produce content, upon which you could claim your Intellectual Properties Rights, you can become a common shareholder in cooperation with others like you, or become a private shareholder inviting -others- to cooperate with you. In each way, you could do so, in the same type of Companies - the Common Companies type.

Yes, Ok, Hold on, here is what I know I have:

My contribution in form of idea , content, a code, research, a piece of art etc….

A free technical shell of facilities to cooperate with others, but under my control due to the permissions, which I am able to set over my Intellectual Properties, within some networking provided as service for development of Organic Groups, such as provided by OG Drupal.

But now, please do not send me to obey and beg investors, consider me as one producing valuable "things", but not (yet) for the end-users, and tell me where is my benefit with any marketing of my contribution, so then I, with others like me, could invite such investors for enabling the development we believe we need?

Instead of going first to such investors, you with other like you could first cooperate in the level of the free service for development of Organic Groups in the designing of your common company, such that

the common company would act as an agent promoting and/or selling your contributions as mature/immature products and/or services to the clients of the agent being also its common shareholders, while you, the contributors, are private shareholders in the company.

Now you could make the agent charging commission on the deals (or other fees on specific service or products delivered) between the contributors and clients,

where the fees are distributed between the shareholders (including the clients) after cleaning the expenses of the company

where the deals may be between individuals (contributors/clients) and/or between the agent as a whole and the clients and/or contributors,

and where somewhere along the way you could offer part of the private portion to investors, for increasing the value of your shares etc.(Generally: The later you get in, the more expensive the shares.)

Yet another way is by having investors as private shareholders and contributors as common shareholders in one company (A) , of which clients are common shareholders in another common company (B), of which one of the private shareholders is the first company (A); in this case c in company (A) may be limited and the company also would have a staff.

Finally: The development of Common Companies, when it is dynamically integrated in the networking of Organic Groups, enables reaching a very complex and well adjusted structure of organization of which components are Common Companies bound together by held shares, each of the other, such that the match of contributors, which is to be measured equally (as common shareholders) in each component (being a common company), is or can be diversified in the organization as a whole. In such organizations, due to the decentralization of the Common Companies, the distinction between each of the three: the shareholders, the employs and the clients, can be diversified and be maintained fully, partly or completely avoided.

You can change the world, if you ask yourself what you want and what the other want, learn the other, so that you could find your way to welcome the other to your way to change the world. This do not mean to compromise; but to Imagine-Think-Learn-and-Do intensively.

ComCom in the evolution of the Web: Web1.0, Web2.0 and Web3.0 - How to make money from even small social networking (node/40),

So How to make money from even small social networking and regardless ads?

1) Make the owner /provider/host of the networking be a ComCom and its common shareholders be the members in the networking!

Also note that:

In ComCom you do not necessarily have to assume the number of common shareholders (the c), except for calculating the value (the t) of the company (where t=(c*v)/d and v is the value held by each common shareholder), but instead you must set the d of the ComCom.

This in return let you have

your networking be increased (with the increment of c as the membership in the networking is only-once-paid for the v in the ComCom, where v may still be constant)

with already stable structure (of ownership) of the company (less tremor of changing hands and more hands),

while having the (value of the) company together with the networking itself be fluently growing.

Being fluent is the exact feature causing/matching the important smoothness in the organic growth of your networking, or the one facilitating a rapid growth in the membership, while already being a self-sustaining-and-functioning-company even in the Long Tail of the social networking).

2) Then increase the facilities of the networking with the investment coming form the common shareholders while focusing on their interest being The common interest in the networking.

3) Once the common interest is established and it matches the (growing) facilities of the networking, locate in the common interest some legitimate additional products/services for sell to the clients of the ComCom:

Such products/services shall be resulted from the activities in the networking, such as: various contents authorized in various licenses, code production, participation/activities in games, contacts or any other social/sexual/political/personal benefits, including pure social activities of your common interest, when are demanding dynamic and organic organization with their commercial sustainability;

and Such clients may be either the common shareholders (being the members in the networking) having additionally also their benefit in the buying ( that maybe useful even just for increasing the c of your ComCom), or simply costumers of the products/service resulted from the activity in the networking.

4) And so you are done when the common interest is attractive enough for producing by the activity in the networking some products/service valuable for some buyers.

The rest is just a matter of some adjustments, but also note that t /v is proportional to c/d, which could make your exit strategy just fine and/or the possibility to invite investors to be private shareholders planning their exit to be just-fine-too.

Shortly, your network or any interconnected group or system you are involved with can now, as a ComCom, be fluently growing, self-sustaining and functioning just like a company. This we believe would give power to your networking and to you in that network, or to the people in the commercial world.

Web1.0 Web2.0 Web3.0 and ComCom:

The Web2.0 vs the Web1.0 reflects more of our social development than of our technological one and so is the development toward the forms of ComCom, but not of the one which nowadays is called the Web3.0.

The technological development of increasing computing power (of integration/syndication) is of challenging & creating & matching
the personal demand for information in Web1.0; the social demand for openness & bidirectionality of information in Web2.0; and the commercial demand for adding 3rd direction from/to any centralized maintains of information in Web3.0.

But the integration/syndication of our social together with our commercial demands are establishable in forms of ComCom for any farther technological development…

The problem: The bigger the group of equal individuals is the weaker is the power of each individual.

The solution: Each individual owns equal part of the group's assets and evaluates it as a whole when leaving the group. Hence, when such small groups equally own bigger ones, the movement of the individual does not harm the bigger, making the solution scalable.

A "leadership crisis"? A "failed system"? Here is an alternative - A stock market regulation aligned with the following six points to benefit customers, which are "peer owners" over parts of the sellers, which are companies in that market.

Q) What type of legal entity has the comcom to be formed in ?A) The formation can be in any area between public (stock) company to all types of associations, such as non profit, profit or for-profit associations and includes private ownership or networking of a partnership, when all are based on agreements (personal and / or common) and/or laws and including without any contradiction the six points defining comcom and with these equivalents:

The business' profit is equivalent to the welfare of the association's members

The business' owners holdings is equivalent to the maintenance (of services, means and holdings) by members and/or their representatives in the associations,

The value of holding in business is exchangeable for money and in association to object-coin or peer-coin (which can be bitcoin like).

Q) From where to start?A) From the respective of the comcom agreement the process can start from any possible/wished type of body with agreement to bind the bodies together, if not in a partnership of ownership with illegal because of some specific legal mismatch, then at least in (temporary) maintenance authorities over the means (production, service and maintenance) of the body.

Comcomized unit versus cooperative (and in larger scale, states and democracy of the masses)

In short - comcomized unit versus cooperative gives more power to each member and minorities, making comcomizing the units (including comcomizing cooperatives) more important for each member, as larger and heterogenic is the unit. Here are 3 points about it making it better "sound" for the 99%: As a share holder;

you independently sets the value of your share in your exiting and hence instantly, but with restrained, effecting the price of your executive power and all other members.

both, your common interest (since the share holding is eqaul) and individual (since it is a share holding) interest, are generated from the same possition of the peer owners;

You are in winwin position of both: entrance and exit.

Conclusion: This is optionally good for making independent and growing bottom up economic, by having small comcomized units, each being both: peer owner of a bigger comcomized unit and a department in it, as peer-coins evaluate the holding in the small units and as the object-coins evaluate the services or product moving between the departments.

This agreement is designed for protecting against been taking over, for allowing competition between groups, benefiting thier individuals, able to migrate between the groups, while becoming stronger versus the groups or versus their executives, because of the common and individual interest given in the peers' postion , which is a winwin postion, in both cases: entry and exit, while always having the power of reflection of satisfaction of the owners, being the masses of the customers being the peer owners (how? search: yes i am angry).

This is for empowering individuals and for providing social strength and practically it can be used for solving both
the cycling of privatization nationalization, such that the government's position would be taking equally by the people claimed to be protected by such government (how? search: govcomcom); and
the credit supernova (- the point of arrival of the dept monetary systems), such that larger such "common companies" allow trading in (and versus) both: "object coins" and "peer coins" of the peer owners in the smaller companies becoming departments in the bigger ones.

The peer coin and object coin as means for trading and evaluating ownership and goods, sometime even without money and hence as non taxable means.

Non taxable ,Why?As long as migration is legal, paying tax is only a choice backing the actions of the taxing authority and its ascendancy!For instance For instance, making the german tax payer to back exporting weapon (and in large scale as being the 3rd largest), exploitation of over sea lands, people and/or corrupt governments and to back the strategy of "too big to fall" discriminating cyprus in the case of luxembourg.
The peer-coinor the object-coin is an accumulative and exchangeable medium, suspending its exchange while holding the trust that it is exchangeable for tangible things in a space governed by agreements between those exchanging the coins and having the trust in the exchange. Sometimes, when the coin is exchangeable only for moderated property, such coin has on itself both symbols, one representing its value and other representing the value's expiration date. Both, the peers-coinand the objects-coin are to be used, when a holding comcom is, or represents, a department in the held comcom, being the governing space of the exchange, as the "departments" are trading across the held comcom (see this picture):

A) the peers-coin is used for evaluating ownership in the exit/entry of holders of comcom/department and

B) the objects-coin is used as a fiat money of the held comcom for evaluating (temporal) responsibility/ownership over objects, such as products, services and/or holdings, in the transfer of the objects between holding departments/comcoms.

How to calculate the ratio between object-coin and peer-coin, x-peers-coin and y-objects-coin, x-peers-coin and y-peers-coin or x-objects-coin and y-objects-coin?

peer-coin evaluates in a one comcom the ownership of one peer owner, where one peer-coin=v=(t/c)*d and t is the total holding value of all the comcom, c is the number of the peers and d is the ratio of the portion held by all the peers.

object-coin evaluates periodical use of object being products, services and/or holdings, for being use by a caretaker (and not a renter) supplying service of/on/by the object being held directly or indirectly by one "held comcom", where the object is attributed to the caretaker being peer owner of the "held comcom" and a department in the "held comcom".

practically the peers-coin and objects-coin could be implemented like bitcoin but without mining or with last descendant comcom holding the bitcoin pooled mining and with uid.

How to guarantee no multiplication of identities of holder in and across common companies?

In real life, all owners of multiple layers structure of comcoms must be attending together. This can be verified by all being marked on a specific non private part of their body (nose), as they are numbered/nicked-named-uniquely by the mark and as they are marked together in one time lasting less than the time for the marks to disappear - this marking may be done even in different locations. Such marking can also be done by a kind of unique per user device.

ComComized unit guarantees equality between its peer members being its owners, sitting at its top and owning equal share of it, but why should any such member be able also to trade her/his membership?

This makes the member becoming more powerfull, while being in a winwin situation - stay in only when is satisfied or go out with a return value. Example: When one sells her/his $10 share only in $9, the executive power of the unit is automatically reduced in 10%, as anyone (out of unit) can see it and hence that power (in the top of the unit) now must care more for the satisfaction of the memebers.

The satisfaction/desatisfaction of the members is now automatically and directly transparent, as the memebrs are free when are reflecting their evaluation about the acts of the representatives of their organization.

Compared with cooperatives: comcomized unit is good for its members in huge and heterogeneous society, such society as of being customers, as cooperative is good for the members in small and homogeneous communities, since the cooperative is build upon trust between the members and the power of member in cooperative is reduced with any increase of the number of the members, if only because each human is always limited in the number of other people the one can evaluate for being trusty.

Also, in registered cooperatives, governments has unnecessary power over their creation, whereas in registered comcom, as being a normal company, the value of the damage done by breaking the contract is recognizable and

Compared with the co-op structuring being more hermetic, the ComComism allows a check and balance by the existing and optional peers over the executive power of their unit, by constantly being able to influence or check the performances over a constant given time of such executives, as such performances are reflected in the lowest, the average and the highest share price and may be estimated through both numbers: of the transactions and of the (peer and/or ordinary) owners in any specific unit, (where the ratio of transactions to owners could help in estimating the reliability of such reflection); and

the normal recommended flow of ownership

goes from the many individuals making, as peers and among themselves, a personal agreement of ownership over "something", which is optionally expandable for including other things, or strating in owning a club, through many clubs owning limited company, to the many limited companies owning public companies and

splits as the ordinary owners are the providers for the peers, such providers as

contributes,

employees,

contractor or

comcom/companies.

Personal agreement e.g. by a click for ownership over a site by its members.

Club If d=1, then the legal form of the comcom can easily be established as a club (social, political, buying club or users' group etc), but only as any member can sell her/his own (fees for) membership at any price while caring (via representatives) for updating the "reflective value of the club" to match the price made in that transaction. Such price and/or such "reflective value of the club" can be in a nominal value stated in points as the club believe each point to correlate with currency e.g. as 1 point correlates to $2.345.

@GOGovcomcom demand your government to list those who are to be reword by its privatization or its bailout and then take those in the list to become peer owners in a comcom of which your government took share or should have been taking shares.

the company, such as the company is defined by the will of its owners in the legal frame of the current country. (i.e. this agreement is under laws of what country/ies?);

its goals, such as providing improvement of conditions of it owners. As for the issue of taxation, the project is part of bigger one aiming to create a new market, where the exact conditions for and of that market, as the project is to be developed organically, are to be decided by the new shareholders still to be recruited;

Here are the 6 points together defining each ComCom ( being a Common Company):

Point 1: It is a commercial company having 2 divisions of shares, namely: the Common and the Private;

Point 2: The ratio of shares in its Common division out of its whole is its Decentralizing property (the $d$), which is defined such that the value of all the Common division equals $t*d$,

where $t$ is the total market value of all the company,

where $d$ is nonzero smaller or equal one ($0 < d <= 1$),

and where $d$ may be set only once in the lifetime of the common company, either in its formation or when it becomes common one from being private one i.e. when $d$ is reset from zero.

That is to say: $d$ is static, it can't be changed if the company is a common one (but if the company is a private one as its d already equals zero, then this company may become a common one by only once changing its d to a nonzero).

When $d$ is zero or d is reset more than once, then the company is a Private and not a Common one.

Hence the d alone defines any company as either Private or Common one and is static in all the lifetime of a common company;

Point 3: Each of its shareholders is either a Common shareholder or a Private shareholder, respectively to the division of shares the one holds.

Hence a shareholder can never be a Private and a Common shareholder.

Both: the Private and the Common shareholders have their rights respectively to their shares and in both considerations:

the one of liquidation and the one of any voting,

so that the distinction between Common or private shareholders is not to be confused with that of the preferred or the common shareholders appearing in classification of Stocks, such that the Common shareholders in such classification are both: the Private and the Common shareholders in ComCom and regardless of any of the "preferred ones";

Point 4: Each of its common shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a Common Company.

Hence a private company can never be a common shareholder in a Common company, but the other way around is possible. This establishes the asymmetric property of the Common companies versus the Private ones in general, for protecting the motion of the notion of decentralizing in the market as a whole;

Point 5: Its total projected value (the t), being the value of all the shares in the company, is always calculated such that $t * d = v * c$, where

$$ t * d$ is the value of the common division of the company, which is equal to the value of all the Common Shareholders in the company;

Only when this equation is evaluated true, then the distribution of shares in the company may be considered as such which reflects the t as the projected value of the company, hence all the 4 following equations must also evaluate true:

$t * d = v * c$

$t = i * s$

$i * d = n * c$

$v = n * s$

and where

$i$is the number of ALL issued shares of the company;

$t$is the Total projected value of the company, which is the value of ALL its shares;

$s$is the price of one Share in the company, it is an offer for sell, which affects directly the projected t and hence all other reflected values in the company;

$d$, as $0 > d >= 1$, is the proration of shares in the Common division of the company, which defines the ratio of the Decentralizing property of the company, where this ratio is static when the company is a Common one;

$c$is the number of ALL Common shareholders in the company;

$v$is the projected value held by EACH Common shareholder;

$n$is the number of shares held by EACH Common shareholder;

and Point 6: It is established by an agreement, prior to any other agreement between any of its shareholders, including any other potential such shareholders,

where the agreement between the shareholders must include these 6 points defining ComCom and must disallow the signed upon it to sell any share of the ComCom to any one which does not agree to the agreement

and where each of the shareholders agree

that the number of shares owned by EACH Common Shareholder always equals $n$,

where $n=(i*d)/c$;

that with each entry of a new common shareholder:

first $n$ is recalculated and set equal to $i*d/(c+1)$ and then $c$ is recalculated and set equal to $c+1$ ;

and that with each exit of a current common shareholder:

first $n$ is recalculated and set equal to $i*d/(c-1)$ and then $c$ is recalculated and set equal to $c-1$ .

Hence always the number of shares owned by each of the Common Shareholders is $n=(i*d)/c$ , which together as one share pack cost $v=s*n$, where the total projected value of the ComCom is $s*i=t=(v*c)/d$.

Terminology:

We call a share pack

the collection of $n$ shares together costing $v$ and being held by each common shareholder.

we use C-holder

as a shorthand for Common holder being a shorthand for Common shareholder

and we use P-holder

as a shorthand for Private holder being a shorthand for Private shareholder.

in the event of:

and in relation to $n$ being the number of shares held by each c-holder

Always:

$n=(i*d)/c$

One new c-holder enters and exactly before $c+=1$:

$n$ is recalculated and set equal to $n*(c/(c+1))$

One c-holder exits and exactly before $c-=1$:

$n$ is recalculated and set equal to $n*(c/(c-1))$

Conclusions:

1)$c/(c+1)$ or $c/(c-1)$, which is used as a multiplier for $n$, is the proportion of each change in $n$. As bigger is $c$, the multiplier fast curves toward $1$ (where if the $multiplier=1$ then $n$ is unchanged), hence $s$, $t$ or $v$ should be realized when $c$ is up from a specific threshold.2) For keeping $v$ be unchanged, $(c+1)/c$ must be the proportion of increase in $s$ with each entry of a new c-holder and $c/(c-1)$ must be the proportion of decrease in $s$ with each exit of an existing c-holder.3) The higher is the threshold the smaller are these changes and $v$ is stabilized.4) The steadiness of $v$ reflects the current structure of the company1 if its C-holders are part of its business activity as the C-holders are its clients, employees and/or contractors. And accordingly, when $v$ is unchanged, then $t+=v/d$, $s*=(c+1)/c$ and $v*=1=(c/(c+1))*((c+1)/c)$, with each entry of new c-holder.5) The steadiness of $v$ is convenient in planing the business for both; the ComCom and those with whom it maintains its relationship, but additionally/alternatively it should be adjusted or adapted to the current and actual business activity of the C-holders as well as of the other market forces. And so, for calculating the projected price being planned to be offered to new C-holders, we can use $a$ as a multiplier for each of the values affecting the steadiness, as the default without such adaption is where $a=1$, hereby $t+=a*v/d$ , $s*=a*(c+1)/c$ and $v*=a$.6) It is important to add that if $v$ is too big, we could reduce it by letting dividend to the shareholders.

The ComCom's virtual business plan:

Here are some tables illustrating a virtual business plan yet without knowing its resources, business activity or market2, but still aiming in many rounds adding new P-holders and C-holders in its transformation to become a ComCom from being an existing normal or private company We assume $a=1$ being the default case, where $a$ is an Adjustment multiplier value for calculating $s$.

expectation

$t+=a*v/d$or$t*=a*(c+1)/c$

is the expected increase of $t$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder

$s*=a*(c+1)/c$

is the expected increase of share's price in rounds with each entry of new c-holder

$v*=a$

is the expected increase of $n$ share's price or $v$ in rounds with each entry of new c-holder

$$0.5$

3$v+=start_v*dif_d/start_d$ is the expected increase of $v$ between rounds

1. When should we assume an increase proportional to $d$ in the value of ComCom's shares ? Anytime C-holders have additional function than only of investing, such as being client, contractor and/or employee, because such functions are tightly related to the market and/or activity of the ComCom.

2. Having not more then 2 levels; one of P-holders and another of C-holders, ComCom is not a pyramid scheme when it actually produce a business activity regardless of the distribution and value of its shares.

3. When should $v$ increase between the rounds? Anytime $d$ increases between the rounds.

4. the volume of the redaction of $n$ with each entry of new c-holder gets exponentially or faster and faster reduced

1) Why ComComizing (making COMmon COMpanies) is a good thing for the economy (e.g. of USA) and/or as business model?

When considering only the pattern of any company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return, any ComCom can generate an advantage over any private company, where both, regardless their d, are similar, by letting the preferred clients of the ComCom be also its Common Shareholders, since such Common-Shareholders-clients are likely to become more loyal, more bringing friends and more active (at least in informing their preferences to the company).

ComComizing is a good thing for the economy because, while each ComCom still leaves a fixed room for the old class of its owners (such as private companies, investors and entrepreneurial founders) it guarantees a higher quality of distribution of wealth, by offering ownership for a new massive class being its Common Shareholders, each of which owns an equal number of shares and all of which shares are unable to be owned otherwise, hence are protected from unequal ownership. This new class may include its customers and employees aside with or along with its power producers (even when are so unbound as contractors). Such power producers are artists, developers and/or researchers. Hence, by elevating this new class of owners and by having the class be protected from takeover by unequal ownership of some private hands, ComComizing strengthens the middle class being the most essential for any long run health of the economy.

Here is an example illustrating the bottom-top structure of some such ComCom, where the Common Shareholders in all these ComCom belong to the new class of owners. This structure can be imitated to many others, where all such structures are based upon the primeval pattern of company having its clients to which it is to provide service/product for a financial return and where the Common Shareholders of the last ComCom (ComCom-E in the eg.) are Common-Shareholders-clients and the Private Shareholders of the first ComCom (ComCom-A in the eg.) are all the shareholders of a normal private company before it is to become a ComCom:

ComCom-A, providing some consulting for internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders are some investors and entrepreneurial founders and of which common shareholders are researchers.

ComCom-B, providing some internet platforms, is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-A and of which common shareholders are programmers.

ComCom-C providing some internet platform dedicated for unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-B and of which common shareholders are artist.

ComCom-D providing some internet platform acting as a gallery is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-C and of which common shareholders are public relations (PR) contractors.

ComCom-E providing some internet platform selling unique content is such of which private shareholders is ComCom-D and of which common shareholders are buyer of the content provided by the artist.

As you can see ComComizing, as any other companies modules, allows structuring also through the ownership itself. This adds to the known modules some other factors and it is for this structuring that ComComizing can be used for communities like the open-source, free-software, creative-common or generally content related or web 2.0 business. So first let's look into the ownership types involved in any ComCom.

ComCom is an independent unity gathering (just like in a family) both types of ownership, the collective and individual ones, each demands responsibility from the owner for some benefits rewarded, where the collective ownership requires and encourages the sharing, whereas the individual ownership the competition. Both aspects together, the sharing and the competition, are essential for any sustained success and hence both types of ownership must take place, if we are to accept that for the benefit of the whole (company, economy or society) the individuals must also think bigger than just for themselves.

You may find the collective ownership a bit contradicting to your concept of (individual) ownership, if you would expect your ownership be not dependent on the others with whom you share. Thereby , in any ComCom the Private Shareholders have their number (as opposed to the value) of shares exclusively depended on themselves and independently than any entry or exit of other such Shareholder, unlike the Common Chareholders, for whom the number of shares is changed considering each entry or exit of other such Common Shareholder, where this dependency together with the amount of change in the number of shares is exponentially reduced with having more such Common Shareholders in the ComCom.

2) What is the hardest thing to overcome before reaching a massive ComComizing ?

The fact that many people, as they have to meet the failures in the system in which they act, are still afraid to become owners, and still find it easier to blame others than taking for themselves responsibility, which is (in their minds) reserved for the owners. Another disadvantage for investors in ComComizing is their inability to takeover a ComCom for handing it over to the richer ones, ie. less of the common exit strategies.

3) One of the most urgent issues waiting to be solved by any current/next US president is the mortgage crisis in the USA and particularly all which is involve with the case of Fanny May and Freddy Mac. These two giants owing or being the owners of at least half of the mortgage market, even now after their complete collapse and after the shift from (so called) implicit to (so made) explicit guaranty provided by the federal powers until finally taking over them in a price of more than doubling the American national debt, are to remain in the spotlight, so in this light:

How exactly ComComizing can be used to solve the mortgage crisis ?

(For more about this problem rooted in the economy of US and being established since the great depressions in 1938 under the name of "the new deal", please see this: Federal_National_Mortgage_Association).

Passing through all the layers, the Problem was of over trust, that much that even the specialists did not understood the (financial) instruments they used, while relaying the most only on the identity of the sellers assumed to be well enough respected!!! This is always caused by over centralization!!!! The solution therefore must care for better distribution of wealth and for cooperative ownership.

First let's introduce the concept of GovComCom: These are ComCom of which initial private shareholders are government agency/ies and of which common shareholders are included in some target groups to be helped by some governmental activities for satisfying some social, of community and/or financial requirements of the union or the state, the city, the community etc. eg. for such such fields are education (universities), health-insurance, social/community activities organizations/groups etc. It is part of the concept that the GovComCom may become latter ComCom by having the government agency/ies exchanging hands with the private sector and still as such it is unalike the privatization as we know it today, since the new ComCom would be still held also by their common shareholders.

By the government creating some ComComs acting like commercial banks, where the Private Shareholders (under some guidelines/regulations) of the ComCom are agents of the federal powers and its Common Shareholders are borrowers who personally guaranty loans transformed directly, or (mostly) indirectly to be the mortgage owned by Fanny May and/or Freddy Mac, where each of the borrowers in their loan also pay for the one's right (given as a bounce) to sell or become a common shareholder in the ComCom, but only after the debt to the ComCom is paid off and where some parts of the private portion of such a ComCom could later on be sold by the government to some private hands.

This type of ComCom may be formed with specific limitations, such as of number of Common Shareholders, value of to their total debt and/or its quality of distribution, and even (because of the nature of collective responsibility bind with benefit of the Common Shareholders) such that within each GovComCom the Common Shareholders are not competitors of each other, (e.g. if the borrowers are players acting in the same field then they shall be located not in the same region or be Common Shareholders in other such GoveComCom).

These GovComComs, then, are to be additional players in the stock market attempting to own shares in Fanny May and Freddy Mac, or becoming Common Shareholders in one and/or both of them, if they would become ComComs themselves.

If this is the case, then, even when the federal powers have to intervene by injecting (tax) money and/or by providing some sort of guarantees, still the burden of excusing such an action will be lighter, since now such intervention is done to directly support those who are desired by the federal powers (due the tax payers and in the name of the voters), and only via them the stock market, but not directly the unknown stock market players and only via them the desired ones.

Of course all this should be urgently considered since things already became too ugly, meaning both companies are held from being corrected by the market, just because they are too big to fall.

4) How to quantify the quality of any distribution and especially the one of wealth (and distinguished from how to map such distribution between some groups) ?

Let X, out of the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the owners arranged from the richest to poorest,
such that the position of the richest on the X is in the range tending to X=0
and that of the poorest is in the range tending to X=100;

Let G, representing the grid upon X, be a counter of all the X points evaluated in question,
each of which is in equal distance of 100/G from its nearer X point/s.

Let Y, out of the whole property owned by the whole population in question,
be equals the percentage of the property owned by
all the owners specified from the current X to X = 0,
such that the percentage of the property is ADDED
per each X from the current to the zero for accomplishing calculating each Y;

Let Q, representing the Quality of the distribution,
be equals -5000 + the sum of all Y,
where 0 <= Q <= 5000 and the bigger is Q the worse is the distribution,
hence Q/50 is the percentage of the quality of the distribution in question
out of the worst possible distribution,
where Q is comparable across some such distributions
only if the G in question is equal across all the distributions.

Some notes:

It is hard to get the data, we get only portions, please help to get the data. here is the last such protion: ""The top 1% of all households owned 35% of the world's wealth last year. Meanwhile, the top 0.001% (1%/1000), ultra-rich households holding at least $5 million in assets, commanded $21 trillion — a fifth (20%) of the world's wealth". From making the Q of it we would approximately get 0.000001% (1%/1000000) of the World population owning 10% of the property on earth, that is 6.7 billion/100,000,000=67 peoples which we do not have the list of their name. Could you help on getting good data?

1.The diagonal on the plane (where x=y )
represents the best distribution of the wealth,
and the worsen the distribution
the bigger is the belly of the produced graph above that diagonal,
where the worst distribution, corresponding to each 100%*100% square,
accounts to 5000 and the best to zero.

2. This graph vs the diagonal represents,
while the capacity demarcated between the graph and the diagonal quantifies,
the quality of the distribution of wealth,
such that the bigger the capacity the worsen is the quality
and hence, as it quantifies the group,
it provides a kind of zoom with an insight into one group in question,
but it is valid only within the group and not across some such groups,
although is valid for all such groups if are collectively regarded as one group.

3. If we do want to compare the quality of distribution in groups
(and distinguished from comparing the distribution between those groups),
then we also must have D, as such diagonal, per each such group.

We can do so by
first arranging the groups from the richest to the poorest,
then setting the natural number m >= 1 as an identifier per each such group,

then setting per each group the n(m)
as the percentage of wealth of the group m out of the richest group
(so that n(1) =100 on m=1 and n(m) <=100 on m>1 )
and then recalculating per each such m:
y(m) = y * n(m) / 100 ,
x(m) = x + 100 * m
and D(m) being a direct line between
point_1=((m-1)*100,0) and point_2=(m*100,n(m)).

4. We can set in question any kind of population (X) in relation to its property (Y),
e.g. all the people vs all their property,
or all the people in USA vs their property,
or all people watching TV for more than 5 hours a day vs
their property etc.

5. We can always add new dimension z,
representing the changing in the quality of the distribution along the time,
where z = some time notation e.g. year, or day etc.

The constitution of its citizens is based on the natural right of each of its citizens to own equal share of all the resources belonging to the union/state, hence the constitution establishes arrangement treating the state/union as a ComCom of which d=1.

6) What make a person be a ComComist?

Attempting to ComComize and generally to interface with ComCom rather than with private Companies of which d=0.

7) Should some more chill responses be considered for ComComizing, and if so what are those?

Yes, here are some:

It is time to admit that our well trusted specialists in economy were so deadly wrong to measure the health of any economy heavily/mainly by its growth and regardless the quality of distribution of wealth in it!

That was like measuring stability of a system by the increase of the energy it contains and regardless where the energy is located and how well it is concentrated in its locations. Shortly they measured excitement of a system and confused it with its health, such doctors are only drug pushers, no more, and the drug in this context is the increase of consumption due to the increase of debt cynically and cyclically guaranteed.

(The analogy of wealth being held (i.e. money) to energy, is base upon the ability to generate changes by both.)

In short, ownership matters! Do not give it a way, while you can own but still share equally the ownership for to act similarly as in the public domain, but in the domain being your ComCom. Sometime you may not want to share with all the people for all their reasons if you strongly oppose some of them.

As for the overpowering open-source initiative's clauses 5 and 6 instructing "No Discrimination Against Persons, Groups or Fields of Endeavor" (initiated, declared and described at opensource.org/docs/definition.php) and in relation to the question of For whom is the knowledge making profit, here are some responses for to consider both clauses unfair toward the individuals in the communities the initiative claims to protect and to reconsider some kind of, but not overpowering, discrimination:

You may consider your work valuable that much that your competitor such as those who do not always only provide and respect the open-source motion even when form time to time are very supportive to massively suck your source (such as google, microsoft, oracle, ibm etc) would NOT benefit from learning your work for latter taking their advantage against all your community, you or some values you believe in.

Your business model without generating some advantage against your competitors is weaker, making you less capable for your claimed needs (see the case of mozila firefox vs the chrome of google, aiming blocking the block add features provided in firefox), where advantages against your competitors are gained by dominating discrimination, such is even between the group of registered members vs the others.

You may be working in a closed company and be well payed by it and just because you know well to orient in the open community and you may additionally even contribute to that community, in which case you would be in contrition/counterproductive/contradiction (schizophrenic) mode, when asking yourself just how much of my work would I give to the community and how much to the company paying me so well. This usual case of being in contradiction weakens each, any and all of the community.

You may consider some values, such as no discrimination against minorities or gender, be valuable so much so that you should not let your work be used by who ever act against your values.

As for the Rationale behind clauses 5 and 6: You may find that you do not necessarily want to get "the maximum benefit from the process", what ever (since they defined it) that "process" may be and assuming that "the process" is somehow related to generally advancing the huge thing we call technology, since such technology may be developed (by others) to kill or to contribute to discrimination, addiction, confusion disorientation or global warming etc.

8) Does the stock market and privatization, being the main factors establishing the globalization as we know it today, contribute in their design to worsening the distribution of wealth, and if so how?

Yes, and here is the how it is just so "happening": Privatization takes out from the all being equal voters any possible power of decision and the stock market is determined only by players seeking for their best exit strategy, which is no more than first takeover then hand it over to in the height price to the richer ones, which if are not more foolish than you, would make the same for getting richer.

9) How about a Credit Union - could this be considered a type of ComCom?

No, since ComCom is only where the common shareholders have Equal number of shares, since only, by such equality we could cause both: better distribution of wealth and cooperative ownership.

10) After the end the communist regime the Privatization in Czech Republic was made by offering equal shares to all the citizens, but then some of which citizens could and did buy the right of the others and so the distribution just gut be much worsen, how ComComizing could differ or could prevent such a case from happening?

Such case, could not happened and still be leagl, since it is agreed by all shareholders of any ComCom that in a ComCom one common shareholder could never have right of more than one common shareholder and that all shares owned by all common shareholders are unable to be owned by any other than common shareholders and that the proportion of those shares out of the total market value of the ComCom must always be d .

so that each share price is at least one cent and each Common Shareholder owns at least one share,

hence for satisfying this requirement, more or less shares may be issued .

Here is a an example demonstrating what happened to the v being the value held by EACH common shareholder, where

c increases from zero;

$d=0.8$;

$i=500$;

and v is stable, despite (or exactly when) the n (number of shares of EACH Common shareholder) is reduced

$c=$ number of Common Shareholders

$v=(t*d)/c=$ the value owned by EACH Common shareholder

$t=(v*c)/d=$ the value the company

$t/i=$ the value of one share

$t*d=v*c=$ the value of the common portion

$(i*d)/c=$ the number of shares owned by EACH common shareholder

$t*(1-d)=$ the value of the private portion

$0$

-

$12.5=v/d$

$0.025=12.5/500$

$0$

-

$12.5$

$(+=1)$

$(+=0)$

$(+=12.5=v/d)$

$$(+=0.025=v/(d*i))$

$(+=10=v)$

$(-=(i*d)/(c*c(c+1))$

$(+=2.5)$

$1$

$10$

$12.5$

$0.025=12.5/500$

$10$

$400= 0.8*i=(4/5)*i$

$2.5$

$2$

$10$

$25$

$0.05=25/500$

$20$

$200=0.4*i =(4/10)*i$

$5$

$3$

$10$

$37.5$

$0.075=37.5/500$

$30$

$133.333=0.266'*i=(4/15)*i$

$7.5$

$4$

$10$

$50$

$0.10=50/500$

$40$

$100=0.2*i =(4/20)*i$

$10$

$5$

$10$

$62.5$

$0.125=62.5/500$

$50$

$80=0.16*i=(4/25)*i$

$12.5$

$6$

$10$

$75$

$0.15=75/500$

$60$

$66.667=0.133'*i =(4/30)*i$

$15$

$7$

$10$

$87.5$

$0.175=87.5/500$

$70$

$57.1428= 0.1142857*i =(4/35)*i$

$17.5$

$8$

$10$

$100$

$0.20=100/500$

$80$

$50=0.1*i =(4/40)*i$

$20$

Now, one private shareholder buy $10$ percents of the company, or half of its private portion, for value of $20$ (double price), hence $v$ now is doubled: $v=20$

$8$

$20$

$200$

$0.40=200/500$

$160$

$50=0.1*i =(4/40)*i$

$40$

$(+=1)$

$(+=0)$

$(+=25)$

$(+=0.05)$

$(+=20)$

$(-=(i*d)/(c*c(c+1))$

$(+=5)$

$9$

$20$

$225$

$0.45=225/500$

$180$

$44.44'=0.088'*i =(4/45)*i$

$45$

$10$

$20$

$250$

$0.50=250/500$

$200$

$40=0.08*i =(4/50)*i$

$50$

Conclusion:

As $d$ is a nonzero and constant and the projected value of all the company is $$t=i*s$,where $i$ is the number of all shared issued and $s$ is the price of each such share,

the equivalent for calculating number of shares multiplied share price,

per each Common shareholder is $v=(t*d)/c$,

which is reflected ONLY from $t$ and $$c$ being the number of all Common shareholders

and per each Private Shareholder is $(t*(1-d))* x$, where $x$ is the share/portion of the private shareholder in the Private portion of the company.

Note that:

The equality of the value held by EACH common shareholder can be (and is normally) kept not only between the exiting ones, but also between the entering and departing ones, until private shareholders change the share price. This equality enables stabilizing the business plan of the company and it kept by having the price of shares increased by $v/(d*i)$ for matching $(v*c)/(d*i)$, or by increasing $t$ by $v/d$, with each entry of new common shareholder. This increase of the share price offsets the decrement by $(-=(i*d)/(c*c(c+1))$ of the number of shares held by each Common shareholder and is generally explained by involvement of more them, when the common shareholders are to be the clients/contributers supporting the growth of the company (which as shareholder are expected to be more loyal and having benefit in bringing more like them etc).

ComCom - Its Unique factors: the d, c and policy

The Unique factors for ComCom: The d, c and policy as t * d = v * c:

Here are some factors to combine for achieving specific performances of a common company (where these factors are not available for any private company):

'd' (as in Decentralization of the company) constant indicating the proportion of the common portion out of both portions,

'c' variable indicating the number of Common shareholders, which might be defined either unlimited or confined for to meet some limits ( as the maximum of c is either fixed or is proportional to some factors) and

the policy of the company as for who and when could become Common shareholder (in regard to the company they are its partners, clients, clients being partners).

Comparison: ComCom vs Private companies

Mainly, when compared with similar private company, the disadvantage of Common Companies is in reduction of the control of its private shareholders, which can be moderated by adjusting the desired and transparent factors 'd', 'c' and policy, whereas the advantages are in any other desired aspect, including

increasing its market by being more attractive to its clients (able to be its shareholders), hence turning such shareholders-client to become one bringing other such clients,

flexibility with making partnership, especially when the company is young,

increasing the branding and quality of the service and products of the company by letting the clients be able to be involved in determining the service and products, where the clients share also the profit of the company and

the above aspects as being already proven by the Free Software/Open Source and the Web 2.0 strategics,

but without their necessity to be based

on having applications being closed in a server or

on advertising (being for-profit corporations seeking to increase virtual need or demand for their products or services )

and with additional features, such as

keeping the form and formation of the company including its attributions and preferences,

(since) d, indicating the private or common feature of the company, is vertical (i.e. d is an additional dimension) to how much of its source is open or close to the public domain, hence company can be either private or common delivering products of which source is either open or close,

i.e. d is vertical to the proportional amount of the company's source/knowledge being open in regard to its profit and out of all such source/knowledge - the open and the close.

So, now we can compare the Flow of ComCom vs the Private ones:

ComCom - Is it open source or close source oriented?

common and private companies for open and close source or knowledge!!

Faq:

Q) Fitting to close AND open source, including Web2.0, strategies, how?

A) This is New approaches for interfacing Companies and individual

Common companies: For building communities like of artists and/or developers in form of commercial companies. Common companies are commercial ones, but each of which consists of 2 portions, in 1 of which, each of the shareholders has equal number of shares and is either a person or a common company.

Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hands, also in the commercial world.

Q) Common companies just made a little noise- Whoosh!

A) no !
since d(as in Decentralization of the company), indicating the private or common feature of the company, is vertical (i.e. d is an additional dimension) to how much of its source is open or close to the public domain, hence company can be either private or common delivering products of which source is either open or close!!!

i.e. d is vertical to the proportional amount of the company's source/knowledge being open in regard to its profit and out of all such source/knowledge - the open and the close.

Q) equal number of shares sounds fishy

A) equal number of shares sounds fishy, Yes it sounds!!! but equalization is used for specific (yours in this case) preferences as it always does:

Yes it sounds!!! But try this: you have your open-source project, of which core developers are private shareholders. Now you allow other to benefit from your project, including developers and/or users, which might become common shareholders.

Now this equalization of the common shareholders, if you build it right, serves your preferences as a private shareholder.

Remember, not all the company is held either by common or by private shareholders, so considering the d, a balance of powers must be made!!!

The equalization in common companies is just a tool which with keeping attribution (with the preferences, form and formation) still make fluent your sharing of your knowledge.

Now there is here another aspect. I came to it because of my fear of use of some agents of government, which would be using my intellectual property.

You might say, as rms said, hey, well, they would take it anyhow, butthat is what blocked me since then.

The problem with open-source for me is with another kind of equalization, the kind which do not let me have preferences as for what is the use of what i developed. i mean yes, in the end , every one would benefit, from the moment it is out, but what is out, a peace of code a concept , how long is the way in which i still have some control (i mean in the early days in that project i do have, for that is the project), for me it- the way until the project, with some phases etc, is completed - is my responsibility.

With common company i can share that responsibility and be at least in frame of law for not serving who i strongly oppose.

Q) it needs something, i can't put my finger on it

A) I wish i could, and i do want to do my best for, to put any finger on it. If you mean that common companies need something, yes of course, it needs. What it need is people ready to explore the potentiality of it, that is all what i am trying now to do: Gathering core of freaks to Common Companies, building a nice working e.g., which would grow slowly and be scalable but surly be different one beginning with initial law costs. For this what is required is not so much of private investors, but as i said there, 100 common shareholders maintaining the growth itself (by paying for their membership and by adding their activities), with leaving (due to defined d) a portion ready for private investors to come afterward into it.

Q) "Define membership."

A) Membership - it allows service of the company to its clients being members, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Shareholding - it allows control over, and benefit (in from of dividend) from, the company, and it might be paid by activity of clients and/or by their real money.

Membership and Shareholding are calculated independently as for such payments. e.g. membership cost 24$ per 3 months, and common shareholding 10 $ only once, so that in the first cycle of 3 months the one pays 34$, whereas in the other such cycles only 24$.

Now, the total = C*10$, where C is the number of Common shareholders, whereas the the assets of the company is from the membership payment minus dividends and the expenses of the company, upon which the common shareholders may have control (that is depended on the d, which also affect the the value of the common or private shareholding).

Q) "Having stock is not membership. It has to be more.

We have to be careful not to replace one dependency with another."

A) The dependency in this structure, as in the constitution of its citizens and as in my invention (-see piletech), is or might be cyclic but with distinction allowing to maintain the order. in other words it is mutual dependency. This is the point!!! in normal math cyclic get stuck (with stack)!

For whom is the knowledge making profit ? in 1 table (node/18)

Rational: Sometimes cooperating by licensing is simply too weak in comparison to ownership in partnership between peers, particularly when seeking for "openness" between themselves, the peers can form their own "ring".

E.g. When such peer ownership is over resources, which are required for having platform for open development of their ideas and from these ideas all the way until the products/services and farther on to the clients, as each ring, has its own openness and policy for messaging and history.

Only now such openness can be used for gaining more power for the "rings" of the peers and for each such peer, as such peers as developers, researchers or clients, can now even be forcing within it ring and hence radiating outside, some common values, such as of human rights -

The argument of The Cathedral and the Bazaar made by esr (upon which the open source "movement" was established) is true, but not only for knowledge making but also for decisions made upon it, which is done only where the owners sit.5

When the Approach is

As the knowledge is

Where the use (of the knowledge) by others is made

The profit is made

of closing knowledge

exclusive property

centralized, as the use is restricted by the owners and/or separated from the products of the knowledge

centralized

of opening knowledge

contributed property

decentralized, as the use of the knowledge is allowed under standards such as gpl, open-source and common-creative, within the umbrella named Web2.0

Mozilla VS Google

Hence mozzilla must be ComComized for surviving and we could use ComCom Social for the sake of the open source community in its struggling in front of the codes closed in servers owned by big cooperations.

The problem is not just financial; it is also ideological.

Why YouTube HTML5 Videos Don’t Work in Firefox and Opera and What is that <video> tag of the h.264 ?

The focus, the dream and the problem of centralized systems in which we are living (node/19)

The Focus The Dream And The Problem

of us and of centralization in general and nowadays

The problem in (the momentum of) the focus: The advantage in centralized organizations, as in hierarchies, is always limited in the ability of such organization to fix for long term (statically and/or dynamically) the focus of the organization as a whole, but that exactly marks the disadvantage of any centralization as such, which sooner or later must reach the disadvantage of its unawareness to that which is ignored as being out of the focus of all the organization, therefore, centralization, when is useful, it is only for fulfilling well defined tasks in well defined context, time frame and timeline, hence always temporary, never as a total system or as a standing alone system, when the knowledge of all is yet not given. (e.g. of long term ignoring in the market system is when analysts of the market define the market as healthy regardless its bad distribution factor.)

Nowadays, the globalization is centralized and the centralization acts globally. As a result, when looking around and backward, what we see in the last ten years (or more) of overwhelming privatization, is

An increase of over centralization of the market as a whole mostly owned by less and less few;

An increase of dissatisfaction from local political systems, every where in the globe (for more about the dissatisfaction, please look under the labels: suppression, corruption and wars); and

An increase of both powers, namely: the hierarchies of technocrats from the inner side of; and lobbies sent by owners of the market from the outer side of the politicians, the media and/or judicial authorities, being pushed in their positions to be situated constantly in such a rush, which is proven to make them be increasingly unqualified for their decision making for our sake, (as we are learning more about the few critical mistakes being taken, but also as we know that, yet, only few of all the critical mistakes being taken are known to us).

If this is not your dream, if you believe some thing is very wrong with this trend, if you fear collapsing of this system is sooner or later to come and if you feel the need to change it, then decentralization in form of binding together the benefit with the responsibility of the decision makers in the most bottom or the most atomic elements of making decision, can be considered by you as a new dream or a trend to go into or be joining in.

In all the levels: a responsibility-for must come with some benefit-from, where the benefit and the responsibility shall fit each other, and in all the levels, regardless any benefit, even when it is demanded, responsibility would never emerge, if you can see that human as beings are mainly attempting to gain befite, where such benefit in their view is either located well or, when they are confused, deceived and/or uninformed, is dislocated.

Shareholders having equal share are exactly in the postion of being able to gain befite, but only with their responsibility, at least toward the others they are equal with, but then the few owning currently the most of the market determining our living, would lose their possessing over the market, as more of the market would be of common companies, of which d is bigger, since then, the only part they could ever possess would just be the private portion of Common Companies, hence then, the less of the market would be able to be centralized.

Now, If you are an artist, a developer and/or a researcher, then You are the one which creates or produces what the power players in the industry must have! Please hold this in your mind: You produce power.

Do not distance yourself, since it is all around you anyhow. It is your power and your responsibility, so please use it for what you believe is the best!

So, you can have a say as for the use of, and can have your justified profit from, your contributions to the commercial world, by becoming a Common or a Private shareholder in Common Companies holding some of your Intellectual Properties Rights, and you can begin doing that in (this) free networking of Organic Groups, since the mature state, in financial terms, of the Organic Groups appears naturally in the form of Common Companies, in which some of the contributions are measured equally and some are not.

But, how to be well organized in environment known only partly for achieving specific and/or general tasks?

It is precisely the feature of equality in organization, which provides its decentralization, which in return makes the organization be suitable better than due its centralization, if and when not all the necessary knowledge is given to the organization. This is the basic for natural systems, interneting and of the concepts of democracies, common knowledge and macroeconomic. And this is the reason for each of such Common Companies to have such measure of decentralization (the d) be defined (but only once) between 0 and 1, such that the equality in the structure of such common company provides its fluent interface and the unchangeability of the decentralization provides its stability and visibility.

The bigger is the $d$ of a ComCom the more its approach is of (still) own what You share in it, so then

when you share what you (still) own your benefit is (still) bind with your responsibly (to share),

which in return let the others similarly sharing with to trust you more for the Common Dependencies they have with you.

Moreover

since the Private and the Common shareholders of ComCom are instantly affected from the same share price of any ComCom

and since the $1-d$ of the private shareholders in ComCom is to be calculated in regard to the value of its target market and its advantage over its competitors in that market

the Individual Dependencies being so natural to the compressional world are embedded into the ComCom also for the benefit of its Common shareholders

hence the balance between both type of Dependencies (the Individual and the Common) correlates to the desired $d$ of a ComCom.

In other words, if a ComCom accumulates its worth by attracting its Common shareholders for arising the value of its Private shares, then its Common shareholders are instantly benefiting from the value being raised and then when the investors join a ComCom as Private shareholders, then the ones have a place in it (of which maximum is $1-d$) but never can swallow it all, since any investors serve only as middleman between the company and its power producers and between the company and its clients.

due to their 3 dimensional factor of $d$, $t$ and $c$ (together forming their 1 dimensional factor of $v=(d*t )/c$, which is valid only in the case of ComCom) and in addition to (and sometimes even more significant than) the traditional factors of any company, being

its resources (the have),

the volume of its target market (the want)

and its advantage over its competitors in that market (the can).

We live in an Era of shared contents (i.e. the Web 2.0/social-networking and in general the notion of sharing) and in this context the structure of ComCom is useful for

attracting clients tending to become more loyal, more bringing other clients, better informing about their wishes, if are also its (Common) shareholders; and/or

attracting developers, researchers and/or artists which even by contributing to such company can become owner of the company.

This in general leads to the required initial/continuing investment be dramatically reduced and/or to the target market be dramatically gained, for companies based upon contents produced by individuals being developers, researchers and/or artists, where each such company completely or partly open or close its source being their works.

The choice to form/join/interact-with ComCom over the Private ones is also a political, social and environmental one, since

The more $d$ and $c$ are bigger the more the Common Dependencies in the company are effective and its structure tend to be more stable ;

The more of the market is of ComCom of which $d$ is bigger the less the ownership over the market CAN EVEN BE centralized.

The centralization of ownership over the market enable only few to achieve any benefit from

increasing corruption scales everywhere in the globe

the measure for health of economy being the increase of consumption fueling the claimant changes by human.

War and Foreign affairs benefiting land owning

In other world if you position yourself only against over centralization of the market you have very few enemies (some strong families - but no more) to fight against and your position then is with all the others, in any place with any color etc. (that is what Common Dependencies are all about.)

IsWith

IsWith - its mission (-)

Click me, if you did not yet see how to become a common shareholder in IsWith and now, could you imagine the Social-networkings themselves in a financial form of companies structured for allowing their members to be also their shareholders? It is now made possible by simply distinguishing between 2 type of shareholders: The one (the Common) is for the members and the other (the Private) is for the investors in Common Companies - the ComCom. ComCom is the next step in the social networking market !

And so, since all ComCom descriptions are licensed and authorized only with (commercial/non-commercial) attribution to here, you now may find that sooner or latter it would be a good thing for YOU to become a Common Shareholder in IsWith LTD (especially as the worth of such holding is increasing with any entry of additional such 55 shareholders, so that after you gut into IsWith you could benefit from bringing your friends with you. Well, that is what we consider to happen sooner or latter).

Here you have 2 Notes from our provider:

The company providing this networking IsWith LTD, may change licensing from non-commercial to commercial ones and/or provide consulting around building ComCom in return to payment (for more please use this contact )

Let's make some ComCom (together), that is all the purpose of IsWith! It might be also your purpose since ComCom is the Business module for WEB 2.0 together with making money out of it ( in its growing and regardless ads and/or big players + EXIT )! In other words ComCom is a structural solution for businesses targeting the web2.0, specifically the long tail in the social networking and generally the market consisting of artists developers and researchers!

This ComCom networking is now build for allowing not only the technological infrastructure for content based deals in the networking, but also for the commercial one, since the ComCom is the natural mature state of OG (Organic Groups) developed around such content!

You can Take your hold in the companies producing their benefit in the market out of your knowledges, talents, activities and/or consuming, if you cooperate with those accepting the one formula (the decentralization formula:$t*d=v*c$), establishing the ComCom!

Web 3.0 is no more than a new toll for centralizing the Web2.0 and Web2.0 is all about decentralization, but still the question remains: How much of the web2.0 is Real in your living and how could you earn more out of the web2.0, if the centralization of information is Decreased, but the the centralization of the market is Increased in the last decade of globalization?

How about ComCom as a new concept of companies challenging the sickness of the nowadays capitalism, or do you want to change the world and also make from that money, are you about making your community/ies AND making your own money with it ?

Everywhere - the artists, developers and/or researchers are the real producers of the power (of/upon the people). As one of those power producers you may find here a very valuable information.

We hope you want to Make A Difference in this world together with making your profit from that, because here you can, since always shareholders (power owners) are above the highest-ranking corporate officer being CEO (power holder)! We also hope you would become a common shareholder in IsWith LTD providing this service (for more see g2).

Make the companies you are interfacing with be yours, also make IsWith be yours and make it yours only where responsibility is bound with benefit. After all, where centralization can never be sated, there it becomes the mother of all corruptions and decentralization is the most urgent thing to do.Welcome again!

introduction-to-iswith (node/10)

Introduction to IsWith

Therefor ComCom and social networking are the perfect match, since you get investing members being shareholders in the developed networking, for more see this.

Now, when you go to you have also the strategy of the IsWith LTD company, that is to say that in the current hot sate of networking market, the IsWith company sooner or latter would increase its value just because of using its licensing for its work about the ComCom, where that is with attribution, therefor the company does not compete against but with other networking.

IsWith is (this) networking for Common Companies and individuals. Here are the 6 points defining such Company, of which a (statically) defined portion is shared (dynamically and) equally between its shareholders (aka its Common shareholders), which are either persons or Common Companies, but shall never be its Private shareholders owning shares in the other portion of such company. The factor of decentralization of such company (aka its d) defines the proportion of its common portion and since it is static, it can easily be transparent.

As in any other private company (of which d is zero), the shareholders in common companies (of which d is nonzero) are above its CEO being its highest-ranking corporate officer (power holder), where the shareholders are the power owners having their benefit-from and/or their production-process-until, realizing the products made by the power producers.

What is significance about common companies is their defined moderation of how much of it could be capitalized by only one entity. And so, when its d=1, then it is fully democratic (but still never communistic, since communism abolishes private ownership and common shareholder owns shares), otherwise only a portion (maximum its 1-d) could ever be fully capitalized.

The effect of the moderation embodied in common companies (as it is defined by their d) can be illustrate, by distinguishing between power producers versus the power owners. In Common companies, the Investors (as the owners) can cut their expenses and more easily earn, but with loosing/losing part of their control and the power producers can cut the middleman being the investors situated between their work and its use/users, and can earn and influence more due to their work, but with caring for more than just their work.

In short such Common Company allows a larger scale of sharing (its) power, even with its contributing clients (when the ones are also its common shareholders), which in return allow the company to have its clients being loyal and benefiting from bringing more such clients. As such Common Companies are useful, especially in the web2.0 environment, for building communities of artists, developers and/or researchers, which are usually being stressed between the will to publish/contribute and the complexity of protecting their intellectual rights. Such communities may be in a form of commercial companies, but still adjusted to the desired decentralizing in each of such companies, so then the scale and complexity of such cooperations can be made greater.

Common companies are suggested here as a fine integration of top-bottom (down to the CEO) with bottom-top (as the common shareholder are above the CEO) in one texture providing solution suitable for making any business development easier (learn more Why Centralized and Decentralized Strategies Are Both Essential).

In other words, when d is nonzero, Common companies, respectively in their both portions, integrate both type of motivations:

the socialistic being of the common, as it is driven from unity and held by the common shareholders and

the capitalistic being of the discrimination, as it is driven form individuality and held by the private shareholders.

If we want to make the world a better place to live in, then we must learn How to use for our purposes, not only in the technology aspects of this world, but also in its commercial systems, but nowadays both aspects, mostly and so badly, meets in one side (the conservative one) of this world (e.g. mind-engineering and wars-making). Common companies let the lonely rich still have a place to be (even rich), but not to control.

Such networking based on common companies provides the means for the power to be (also) for the benefit of its producers, when assuming that only responsibility bind with benefit can be trusted. The networking then, is where we make our way when focusing into the objectives appearing being common, while the way is always marked by the transparency of the factor of decentralizing power in each company (its d), which in return allows each of us to estimate the shared power derived from the shared responsibility bind with benefit (of the Common shareholders) .

IsWith - the Company and networking (node/35)

The company IsWith LTD, which is intended to become itself a common company, provides this networking, the IsWith networking for Common Companies and individuals.

This networking is based on licensed content developed in and between organic groups. The Common shareholders of IsWith LTD (aka Ics , where Ics is one shareholder intending to become a Common Shareholder, when the company becomes a common one) as the power owners in the company interface between both in the networking: the power producers owning and licensing their products and their visitors, where the clients of the company are either, in this networking, the sellers interfacing between the products of the power producers and any of their buyers or, out of this networking, those who are licensed differently.

(g0) As a visitor (and just by clicking) view (where links are marked in green, under the teasers you find &quot;read more&quot; and on the left you find the menu of an article, if it is made of some pages), chat, comment and/or vote; and/or

(g1) as a power producer being a member create your profile and post your content, license it, define its audiences and where it should be published after signing in for FREE ; and

(g2) then, as a power owner, if additionally you want, for once-$10-payment, also become a Common shareholder in IsWith LTD, where such one is able also to create and control groups/communities in this networking (and where such payment will be increased by $1 with each entry of additional 55 such ones, until the payment reaches $100);

(g3) and then, as a a seller, if additionally you want, become, under periodical payment, a client of IsWith LTD, where such one is able to sell products in this networking.

Have fun. Decentralizing Human Systems is now in your hand, also in the commercial world

iswith-service-etc (node/25)

Hello and Welcome!

This is a Free networking based on licensed content interwoven into structured vocabularies (aka categories). Each such content belongs to all the vocabularies it is interwoven into (as the sorting order per each term in such vocabulary may also be manually made by specific assigned one/s), where the terms per each posted content are specified in its bottom left corner and the vocabularies (currently) are:

The Publish in structured as free related tags of which each serves as a preview page for several such contents (If manually ordered, think of tag as a front page or as &quot;home&quot; of something, like the one of this site, otherwise as a simple portal).

The content and the structures are developed by, in and together with Organic Groups integrated with E-Commerce for sells. Each such Group is a collector for users subscribing to it, if the users are approved (automatically or not) by its administrator, where such Group, along with the Public, is also an optional target Audience of any content being posted by users, when the visibility of the Group is defined by its administrator. Hence such Group is a tool for manging the networking of the subscribed users, specifically in correlation to each of their posts and as the Organic Groups are integrated with E-Commerce for sells the networking provides a <i>network marketing</i> providing low cost service of products delivery (and even creation) of your products.

This network marketing can never be a pyramid scheme, as the organizations providing the products here can only be Common Companies or intended to become Common. Here are all the 6 points defining each Common Company. These 6 points, as they are implement in this networking per each such Company, guaranty full transparency of the centralization/decentralization factor of each of the providing organizations. For us in this networking, this factor, along with any benefit and/or responsibility, matters (since otherwise benefit and/or responsibility maybe concluded endlessly sucking)!

The organization providing this service is IsWith LTD in London, now building itself as a Common Company building Networking of Common Companies and individuals. You are now invited to become one of its owners, as a shareholder intended to become a Common shareholder (aka Ics shareholder). The price now is 5 pounds only, while, with each entry of additional 55 such Ics this price increases by half pound until reaching 50 pounds. Hence the earlier you get be Ics the less you invest and the more you earn! For more see the Add to cart in this.

Let us be introduced. Hello and Welcome to IsWith LTD - you are invited to be one of its owners, as a Common shareholder, now in a price of 5 pounds, only! And with each entry of additional 55 such Common shareholders this price increases by half pound until reaching 50 pounds, hence the earlier you get in the less you invest and the more you earn!

The Networking itself is free but some services for establishing and
supporting development of common companies are to be provided only to
common companies of which d=1 or of which one or more of the private
shareholders are common shareholders in IsWith LTD.

Our aim is simply Decentralizing Human Systems, since we believe in the long run power of Decentralized systems, over the Centralized ones and we acknowledge Decentralizing systems as a good thing to establish for enabling responsibility of, bind with benefit to, those who produce the power.

This networking is of Organic Groups and it has, with YOU as an individual, worthy contents, directly because Your Intellectual Properties Rights over Your Shared Content are kept in the networking, until your wish to assign some of Your rights to Your common company/ies.

For us, it is you who produce the power, as you are producing knowledge, upon which you can claim your intellectual property rights, when you can find yourself at least in one of these three categories: The artists, The developers, and/or The researchers!

And with us, as an investor in common companies, you can always find your place either as a Common or as a Privet shareholder.

the 4 groups in this networking (node/11)

For us, the shareholders in IsWith: Those who produce the power belong to our target market and to our target shareholders as they are the artists, the developers, and/or the researchers. We hope that you, as a content producer able to claim your intellectual properties rights, are (also) able to find yourself in one or more of those three categories. Are you?

We have 4 initial groups: the g0 g1 g2 and g3 and together with YOU This free networking have worthy contents, since Your Intellectual Properties Rights over Your Shared posted Contents are licensed, either when are posted by this networking to the public (having its own g0 group) or when are kept in this networking, while the networking serves you all the way until and within your earning money from your exclusive and/or contributed property.

After registering here and for free you (in g1) can assign any content you post and/or Yourself for approval in one or more such Organic Groups, where the approval is made (automatically or not) by the admin/creator of the group, which is also one of the shareholders in IsWith (in g2).

Each such Group (siting in level 0 of the Pass) is a collector for users subscribing to it, if the users are approved and each such Group, along with the Public, is also an optional target Audience of any content being posted by users, when the visibility of the Group is defined by its admin. Hence collectively such Groups are a tool for managing the networking of the subscribed users, specifically in correlation to each of their posted contents.

Shareholders in IsWith, already being admins of such Groups, may also become, under periodical payment, clients of IsWith, in which case (in g3) they are able to create Products for sell in this networking.

Now, when having their sells, such Groups may grow to their mature state being of Common companies.

(As you can see) The business module of Common companies in general is of a bottom-top texture leading to Decentralizing of Human Systems and is useful for achieving responsibility bind with benefit of those who produce the power.

This networking has, with YOU, worthy contents, since Your Intellectual Properties Rights over Your Shared Content are kept in the networking.

For This FREE Registration, you instantly become part of social networking based on content and made of Organic Groups, which are able eventually to become Common Companies integrated in the networking focusing in facilitation of caring for the Intellectual Properties Rights of the contributers.

When, in a specific Path, you produce content, you own it, license it and post it to various publishing tags, while defining the access to it for special groups of audience of which one is the public and to which you post it as a member, so then other users or visitors from the public in consideration of your authorization can be connected to you via your posted contents.

User can also subscribe to groups being created by other users, waiting for their permission. The access to (who are the Audience) together with other features of each of the contents are specified independently per each of the groups and in each group subscribes have additional independent facility, such as colander events project etc.

The development of Common Companies, when is dynamically integrated in the networking of Organic Groups, enables reaching a very complex and adjust structure of organization of which components are Common Companies bind together by holding shares, each of the other, such that the match of contributors to be measured equally (as common shareholders) in each component (being a common company) is diversified in the organization as a whole. In each of such organizations, due to the decentralization of the Common Companies, the distinction between the three: the shareholders, the employs and the clients, can be diversified and be maintained fully, partly or completely avoided.

Our mission is providing you with the Social networking made of organic groups for such purposes, and our strength is of the value of the content, as it is embodied in, and as it is growing from, the care for the Intellectual Properties Rights of the contributers having their content in this networking.

IsWith-LTD its-profile also as a show case (node/15)

This business plan and the structure IS ONLY an example given for an imaginary company named here IsWith LTD

and as such it is given as a show case for How to Make Your Company be a ComCom one.

Its general aspects:

Its mission:

Boost and support for the development of Common Companies versus the Private ones, by providing low-cost or free social networking made of organic groups of individuals and common companies together with additional surrounding paid services provided to the common companies (for which IsWith acts as an agent). This includes services provided by 3rd parties with commission to IsWith. Such services are to be provided only to common companies of which d=1 or of which private shareholders are common shareholders in IsWith.

Its current value:

The factor

its value

description

t

100 pounds

t is the Total value of the company,being the projected value of all shares of the company.

i

10,000

i is the number of all Issued shares.

s = t/i

0.01 pounds

s is the Share price, being the projected value of 1 share.

Its structure:

IsWith LTD is currently a private company intending to become a common one.

In this company, Ics is one shareholder intending to become a Common Shareholder, when the company becomes a common one,

where always:

The factor

description

t*d=v*c

t*d always must be equal to v*c and is the value of the common portion of the company, only then the distribution of shares may be considered,reflecting the t being the projected value of the company.

c

c is the number of Ics, of which each holds the projected value v.

v=n*s

v ( calculated in pounds) is the value held by each Ics.

n

n is the number of shares held by one such shareholder.

s

s is the price (in pounds) of one share.

where initially, when c=1, t=100 and t*d=v*c=5 pounds:

The factor

its value starts with

d = (v*c)/t, the decentralization factor of the company

0.05 (5%)

s, the price (in pounds) of 1 share in the company

0.01 pounds

n, the number of shares held by each Ics

500

v = s * n, the value held by each Ics

5 pounds

and where constantly, with each entry of one additional Ics and in each of the cycles in both first phases of the company, but not in between the cycles

The factor

is changed to

v

is unchanged

n

is reset to n*(c/c(c+1)), but when n = 1, then n is reset to n*50, i is reset to i*50 and s is reset to s/50

s

is reset to s*(c+1)/c

t

is reset to t*(c+1)/c

then c

is increased by 1

Its business plan:

Yet regardless service and regardless any relation between being Ics and being client, while concerning the service of OG (Organic Groups) for free with the fund raising (raising money) and distribution aspects aiming the Fund-Raising (capital) of 136,125 pounds in 90 cycles,

In Phase 1:

No Private shares may be offered for sell to any Private shareholder.

Each new cycle starts with the increase of c by 55, where in between such cycles, 0.5% of the company are redistributed from the private portion of the company to its common portion and in between its Ics,

such that:

The factor

is changed to

v

is reset to v * (d + 0.005) / d )

n

is reset to n * (d + 0.005) / d )

then d

is reset to d + 0.005

and s

is unchanged

and such that:

The factor

in the first_cycle

in the last_cycle

in between each of the 90 cycles

s - Share price

is increased

is increased

is unchanged

n - Number of shares held by Ics

is decreased

is decreased

n is multiplied by ((d+0.005)/d)

v - Value in pounds held by Ics

5 pounds

50 pounds

v is increased by 0.50 pounds

d - Decentralization of the company

0.05 (5%)

0.505(50.5%)

d is increased by 0.005(0.5%)

c - number of Ics, is increased by 55 in each cycle

55

4950

c is unchanged in bewteen the cycles

Note the increase of v in between the cycles, of which each is defined by increase of 55 new Ics, which allows the benefit for current Ics in attracting new such Ics. That is made for faster accomplishing phase 1 with c = 4950, hence ""the earlier you get in the less you invest and the more you earn".

where Phase 1 is to terminate, when

The factor

Its value reaches

c

4950

v

50 pounds

d

0.505(50.5%)

t=(v*c)/d

490,099 pounds

raising fund (or capital) of

136,125 pounds

In Phase 2:

Only maximum of i/(1-0.80) Private shares may be offered for sell to new Private shareholders.

Each new cycle starts with the increase of c by 100, where:

The factor

is changed to

v

is reset to v * (1 + 0.0025/d)

n

is reset to n * (1 + 0.0025/d)

then d

is reset to d + 0.0025

and s

is unchanged

Phase 2 is to terminate, either upon shareholders decision as long as d is smaller than 0.80,

or when d = 0.80,
and in the termination of this Phase, the compny becomes common one,
as its d is set, such that its d can never again be re-set.

In Phase 3:

the company is common one and acts as a common one, as each of Ics is already its Common shareholder.

( we may have CC vs ComCom for distinguishing between the Creative Commons as CC from the Common Companies as ComCom :-) ).

I am sure that some of you would find their grate CC interest also in the ComCom, so here are some entry points:
1) What is ComCom:the concept including common-company-in-6-points
2) The new kind of formations (of cooperations) enabled by the ComCom:formation in short
3) To what extant the ownership may last by forming cooperations in ComCom:you_can

Also, let me now clarify my terminology calling the commercial company IsWith Ltd a "project". The reason I do so, is that this Ltd company is to be owned mainly (between 50% to 80%) by its Common shareholders and its clients must be also its shareholders, in this way the company is more like a community, since each such Common shareholder has equal share/say.

And here are some additional thoughts about the integration of ComCom with CC:comcom-how-it-goes

The main motivation for and the focus of IsWith Ltd is the decentralization by itself (for more please see this for-whom-is-the-knowledge-making-profit and this iswith_why ), its target market (of clients/common shareholders) consists of artists, developers and researchers and its service is of networking or of changing of licensing out of the networking.

IsWith Ltd currently has no budget and attempts to have more common shareholders, of which each pays only once $10, where such payment of other such shareholders will be increased by $1 with each entry of additional 55 such ones, until the payment reaches $100 (or the company would be 50% owned by common shareholders).

Last but not least and in reaction to Lawrence Lessig saying that

his "primary aim now is to put Creative Commons on a solid financial footing, to guarantee the next five years at least.That security will begin if we can meet the goal we have for this campaign — $500,000."

What could be more matching the desire of CC community than that the "solid financial footing" would be formed in ComCom?

Best Regards
with burning ass to start with you doing ComCom :-)
Erez Elul

ComCom Social Networking

the Problem is that Social-Networkings' platform do not match their Financial structure

facebook can only earn $2 per user in a year (that is less then 1 cent per a day), so could we find alternative to such business plan based upon adds and data mining while still providing scalable networking ?

The problem with the (hop-hip-hit-score of the) social-networkings nowadays is that those platforms are based financially on adds (so then whereto the focus goes?), whereas their worth is based on the number/activities/loyalty/income/etc of their members, but the members have no share in owning it.

This problem is not only of accurate valuation of the ads market and is to be considered regardless the question: Does the market is or is not in a state of bobble. It is a structural problem: The members make the value of the networking but do share ownership of it.

Well, the companies owning these platforms now try (so) hard to let you have "a say" in their networkings instead of simply letting you share owning it. It is now a fact that opensocial and facebook let developers to have internal (in facebock) API or cross platform (in opensocial) API, so that the developer having such dual API in all platforms of the market of social networking in all the internet would develop applications running in the platforms of the huge companies for better satisfying their members. Then these developments of source and applications would be open/close-source-licensed, so that you with your friends could make your own application in the platforms owned by those huge companies.

Well, there you could make your (growing) networking, but who would own it, who would set the rules, who would have there a say? For how long with cross platform API an open-source could be used in just those huge platforms? What is the profit of the members in facebook from its new-increasing-worth in the market (which is based on their number/activities/etc) ? maybe better interface with some/much more adds, but not much more.

Common Companies (ComCom) can be structured for achieving

the members in the networking becoming also the shareholders in the provider of the platform

the developers in open and/or close source becoming also the shareholders in the companies providing their source

the clients such companies being also their shareholders

in such companies still having location reserved for investors to come, but without letting them to take all

integrating such companies with transparency of their decentralization factor, which is the one matching with social-networking growth.

Conclusions:

We have the API for developers developing in all huge platforms!

We now miss nothing for the members to make with the developers ComCom Networking!

ComCom Networking running in the huge platforms would be own by the members and the developers.

In ComCom networking the members could be focused on their profit from their long run cooperation.

The next step in social networking market is the ComCom networking (allowing focus on the profit of their members).

All that is now made possible just by distinguishing between 2 types of shareholders, the Common and the Private.

ComCom is the next step in the social networking market ! (node/41)

(please spread this, or better formulated than this,
under the subject: IsWith LTD in London is looking for partners in building ComCom networkings
to any one you know in the networking buzzing, so that we would all benefit from the growing ComCom networking :)

Can Social-networking at any scale be focused on the profit of its members from their long run cooperation in the networking? If you look on what facebook (beyond the bubble question) claims, you could find that they are trying exactly this direction. But then again, what is the profit of the members in facebook out of its new-increasing-worth in the market (which is based on their number/activities/loyalty etc) ? Well, maybe better interface, better deal-date making and with some/much more adds, but no more! (Relative to facebook's worth that is not much).

The problem with the nowadays social-networkings is that those platforms are financially based on adds (so then, whereto the focus could go, how long is the lifetime of the networking, what in it is the common and how the common from/to uncommon could flow?)!

Social-networkings do take our focus, but what are the other and better financial ways fitting to social-networkings, in other words what if the members could become shareholders in the provider of the platform? (and in which case could you tell what would be the preferences of its optional members and the value of the preferences of the existing ones?)

It is now made possible to regulate such behavior (wherein the member of the networking are also its shareholders) by distinguishing between 2 type of shareholders. We, the IsWith LTD in London at http://iswith.info , now target both:
The investors - as private shareholders in the providers of any social-networking formed as ComCom and;
The members in the networking - as its common shareholders!!!

We are looking for partners establishing social-networking, where:
Our info is open and so is the strategy we take;
We provide consulting, change of the licensing from non-commercial to commercial one, but always with attribution and our networking is established not as a competing but as an additional player in the hit of attracting members.